Mary's Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service learned from mistakes and took action to improve people's safety. The registered manager reviewed accidents and incidents records. Accidents and incidents were analysed to see if people's care needed to be reviewed. Reviews of people's care included referrals to appropriate healthcare professionals. Where an issue arose, appropriate action was taken to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. This meant the service was able to learn from incidents that arose.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Systems were in place to ensure information about people was shared appropriately with other services when needed. Staff worked well together and completed handovers to ensure all staff were updated on people’s care and health. Relatives told us they felt the service was safe and responsive to people’s changing needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Healthcare professionals we spoke with told us they worked well together with staff in the home. They reported staff had a good collaborative approach with them and together they were able to ensure people had the care they needed.

People and relatives spoke positively about staff. One person told us, “Staff are brilliant.” People told us their experienced good quality care from the staff team.

Senior staff told us they worked well with other health professionals and obtained any health advice when needed and ensured it was followed. We observed good communication between professionals.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People and their relatives told us their family members were supported to live healthy lives and that the care and support they received was aimed at maximising their abilities but providing care and support where they needed it.

We saw people looked well cared for and happy. People and relatives told us they had no concerns with the support their family members received with healthcare. They said the home would contact a health professional if needed.

The provider had an activities coordinator who was employed to plan and provide people with meaningful activities to ensure their hobbies and interests were maintained. The range of activities provided for people was comprehensive and based on individual assessments of people’s needs and wishes. The activities provided were highly praised by everyone we spoke with including people, their relatives, staff and other healthcare professionals.

Staff knew people well and could explain how they supported people to live a healthy life and provide meaningful activities to help people’s well-being.

The service worked with healthcare services to meet people’s health needs including arranging and supporting people to attend health appointments.

The registered manager set out how they worked with healthcare professionals to meet people’s healthcare needs, including nurses, opticians, chiropody and GPs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to speak up about their care and support to ensure it was meeting their needs. Relatives of people told us they were part of their family members care planning. Care plans provided information for staff as to how to meet people’s needs with regards to agreed care plan objectives. People and relatives were positive about the care that was provided.

Managers told us they routinely checked people were satisfied with the service. People and their relatives were provided with feedback surveys where they could state their preferences and opinions on the care they received and on upcoming and past events/activities in and out of the home. People felt their feedback was taken into account.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were supported to understand their rights. People were provided with opportunities to discuss their views and wishes. People told us they felt they were included with decision making regarding their care and support.

Staff told us where people had the capacity to do so they were encouraged to make their own decisions and wherever possible this was done together with their relatives. Where people did not have capacity, they supported people in their best interests. Care plans demonstrated that the Mental Capacity Act had been followed, and where necessary, a mental capacity assessment had been completed. Staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005.